Judge passes on ruling in lemon law color dispute

Circuit Judge Paul Van Grunsven denied Ford Motor Co's motion for summary judgment against a Fond du Lac couple who sued after the carmaker offered a blue Escape XLT to replace the red 2010 version they purchased but that turned out to be a lemon. »Read Full Article

While we strive for a lively and vigorous debate of the issues, we do not tolerate name calling, foul language or other inappropriate behavior. Please see our discussion guidelines and terms of use for more information.

While we do our best to moderate comments, we do not screen comments before they are posted. If you see a comment that violates our guidelines, please use the "Report Abuse" link to notify us of the issue.

If as it did on this case come down to colors and interiors, I damn well think that "equivalent" means "the same". The under the cover aspects regarding drive train and accessories must be "equivalent". But MY choice of colors that I ordered at the time of purchase are sacrosanct.

This is an insane waste of the court's time and resources. The plaintiffs and their attorney are acting like petulant children. And Mr. Megna thinks this sort of litigation makes him Supreme Court material? Please...

They had a right to force Ford to keep a promise. I want a supreme court justice who believes in this principal and is willing to enforce it puruant to the law. Anyone willing to fight for consumers against corporate giants who produce junk, then try to crush ciitizens with legal costs is EXACTLY what we need at the supreme court level in Wisconsin. Walker and his GOP orcs in the legislature bend over backwards to strip citizen's rights and defenses using ALEC excresences. If the promise of government of, by and for the people is to ever make sense, at least our courts should be the last bastion of reief from parasites for plutocrats and corporatists in the legislature and governors office who are devoted to screwing the working men and women by eliminating things like corporate income taxes in the next 6 years anf likely raising sales taxes on a regressive way..

I suppose you feel just as strongly about Obama, who circumvented the Constitution by signing self-serving executive orders.; ie: "Obama Dealt Blow by a Federal Court: President Obama suffered a setback Friday when an appeals court ruled that he violated the Constitution while lawmakers were on recess". Fortunately, our Courts are the last bastion of relief from a President who is devoted to fundamentally changing America from a democracy into socialist..

This isn't about Walker, Obama or any other irrelevant issues one might seek to interject into this issue. Ford offered to replace the vehicle with one which was newer, and had identical features, but was a different color interior and exterior. It had an MSRP that was equal or higher to that of the original vehicle. So it appears that Ford was complying with the spirit of the law, or at least trying to. I can't believe that this couldn't have been resolved short of litigation. Nor can I believe that one can portray this as a reasonable position on the plaintiff's part.

Vince Caruso - have ever heard that an attorney is duty bound to represent his or her client zealously and within the bounds of the law? To act as his or her advocate, as long as he or she does not bring frivolous causes before the court? Obviously, the trial court judge didn't think this was a frivolous argument as the law wasn't clear on the issue (color of the car). Further, all of this must be done regardless of the attorney's personal feelings on the issues at hand. To do any less would be to deny a client of their right to EFFECTIVE counsel. Finally, you may not agree with a cause NOW, but if you are ever in a position where you need someone to act as YOUR advocate, you'd want the same thing the plaintiffs are getting in this case.

Just....you are omitting the first step in the process; whether or not the attorney takes the case to begin with. There is no doubt here that he took the case, and is pushing as hard as he is, for the publicity. The plaintiffs ARE wasting the court's time. The law does not require the replacement vehicle to be identical. If that were the care, Ford would have found them a used one the same model year, etc. Instead, Ford gave them a vehicle TWO YEARS newer (also not required by the law), but the cry-babies didn't like the color. Our litigious society of entitlements and living off OPM (other people's money) just gets more insane every time one of these lawsuits gets filed.

Color absolutely makes a difference, and the replacement should be the same in every respect or Ford should work out a deal with the couple to take something "similar" but maybe not "equivalent". Ford fighting this couple over this is ridiculous. If color doesn't matter, then why has the GOP had it's panties in such a bundle since the first black president was elected?

Rumor has it the couple are aficionados of the 'hot rod' styling and were looking to add flames and fuzzy dice and maybe a rat fink decal, so you can see where sky blue would have a completely deleterious affect to the mood.

Sometimes I am amazed that a company, even as large as Ford, would let the decision making fall on lawyers. It would have been way cheaper for Ford to give them what they want than listen to a bonehead lawyer!